Public forum outcomes: detailed version

This
includes detailed outcomes from the National Remote and Regional
Transport Infrastructure and Services Forum in Alice Springs on 22 May 2014.

Summary of forum outcomes

Transport and Infrastructure Council

Extract from the Communique of the first Transport and Council Meeting
held on 23 May 2014 in Alice Springs:

the Council recognises the enormous and ongoing economic
contribution made by remote and regional Australia for the benefit of all
Australians

the Council congratulated the Northern Territory and remote
jurisdictions for the highly successful Remote and Regional Transport
Infrastructure and Services Forum held on 22 May 2014, with over 120
industry and government participants

the Council has agreed that the Northern Territory Government will
lead the development of a Remote and Regional Transport Strategy that
takes full account of the key issues and possible solutions identified to
resolve the significant transport challenges faced in remote and regional
Australia

the Council also recognises that the significant and distinctive
challenges in remote and regional Australia require flexible application
of national approaches

Summary of working group outcomes

Two working group sessions were a major component of the Forum. Groups
identified and ranked issues and potential solutions for Infrastructure,
Services and Regulation. The key identified issues and highest ranked potential
solutions are listed below:

4. Working group
sessions - detailed outcomes

4.1 Remote
and regional transport infrastructure

Questions posed to Working Group participants (from Forum Discussion
Paper) to inform discussion:

How can long term sustainable transport infrastructure funding for
remote and regional areas be realised?

Can alternative funding and assessment mechanisms be designed to
deliver better outcomes for remote and regional areas without compromising
broader fiscal, infrastructure investment and policy governance
principles?

4.1.1 Infrastructure funding

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

Economic development opportunities restricted because of limited
funds to develop transport links off major arterial routes.

Having capital and recurrent funding to maintain infrastructure to
appropriate standard.

Remote roads frequently have low benefit cost ratios because of
social and equity issues not well catered for in Cost Benefit Analysis.

Solutions not orientated to a particular transport mode, but
service need.

4.2.5 Local employment and
sustainability

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

What is a regional community? Alice Springs and communities around
it?

Looking at all services – sustaining all these.

Business community model – essential services.

Sustaining services relative to the size of communities they are
servicing.

Cultural barriers – who can travel with who?

Potential solutions as identified by Working Group participants:

Source and skill locals and provide a
motivation to participate in remote communities.

Undertake training and skill building.

Develop remote and regional business
models.

Brokerage services.

Costs of transport for services such as health could be transferred
to community transport solution. Obligation for businesses operating in
regional areas – levy for operating in regional areas to create a
sustainable remote services environment.

Private sector / government funding models.

Tax incentives.

Remote business model.

Potential risks identified by Working Group participants:

Migration away from remote areas. Lack of appropriate motivations
to remain and participate.

Lack of take up by providers and passengers.

4.2.6 Recognise social values

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

Need more consideration of the social value of a trip.

Some services are never going to be commercial, what level of
government subsidy is appropriate.

There is no basic policy foundation to start, no minimum standard
for access to remote and regional areas.

Take up of existing services in Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities. Cultural barriers and use of workers from other
services for transport.

Health professionals picking up patients for appointments, taking
those health professionals away from their responsibilities – waste of
money and resources.

Servicing communications at remote locations.

Intermodal transport.

Strategic planning - prioritising for infrastructure build.

Ownership – intergovernmental relationships.

Sustainability of outstations.

Culture of inherited moral obligation.

Potential solutions as identified by Working Group participants:

Develop acceptable levels of service for
access.

Re-direct royalty funding.

Document community services obligations.

Developing community transport models.

Strategy for embedded transport to be transferred on a
cost-effective basis to community transport and other providers.

Viable or not? Can we provide level of service, what is the
acceptable level? What price will community pay?

Cultural issues around ownership, access to gravel etc.

Potential risks identified by Working Group participants:

Cultural barriers – who can travel with who.

Lack of take up by non-transport providers and potential
passengers.

Welfare dependency.

Demise of settlements.

Social unrest.

Political.

Financial.

4.2.7 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

Difficult to relay issues, breakdowns etc.

Mobile and wireless is not available and frustrates efficient
operations.

Mobile communications and access to wireless networks is
problematic for service providers to operate and resolve problems.

Potential solution as identified by Working Group participants:

Improve mobile coverage.

Potential risk identified by Working Group participants:

Solutions may not be effective.

4.3 Transport regulation in remote
and regional areas

Questions posed to Working Group participants (from Forum Discussion Paper)
to inform discussion:

Are there ways to achieve regulatory objectives that better support
the needs of remote and regional areas?

Should regulatory regimes include differential risk models to be
applied for remote and regional areas, acknowledging the different
operating environment?

Are there innovative approaches to regulation and institutional
arrangements to minimise the compliance demands for remote and regional
transport operators without compromising safety and other regulatory
objectives?

4.3.1 INCONSISTENCY AND
NATIONAL REGULATION

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

Recognising the difficulties in remote areas, related to
communication in part, which over regulates and creates administrative
burden.

Some inappropriate approaches in remote areas due to the lack of
capacity to appreciate risk and develop bespoke solutions.

Regulatory consistency versus flexibility.

The national framework is defined by state borders rather than
environment / needs.

Larger and national operators tend to work (successfully) to laws
that apply in eastern states which may not recognise local environments
and needs of jurisdictions.

"Abuse" of laws occurs at interface between the different
frameworks, i.e. work diaries record "rest" while driver is
actually working in the Northern Territory.

Small verse large infrastructure.

Inconsistency with specifications and regulations.

Need to be more outcomes focused.

Compliance resourcing costs.

Growing compliance requirements - not sufficient processes around
the review of the regulations to determine whether they continue to be
required - therefore results in increasing cost.

Regulatory compliance does not take into account the cost of
implementation.

Not all regulatory compliance requirements are clearly conveyed to
industry.

Potential solutions as identified by Working Group participants (in
priority order):

Create an authoritative commission to
ensure consistency Australia wide and across all transport modes and
systems.

Explore a national zonal approach,
including to access decision making.

Create a national risk based framework
with recognition of local environments and needs, based on population and
remoteness.

Recognise reality – one size does not fit
all.

Metropolitan and rural administered and
funded specifically.

Remove cost and inconsistency in regulation.

Have flexibility for regional issues / options.

National legislation and standards to take into account geographic
/ regional variation based on real issues being freed and effective
consultation (listening and acting on industry issues).

Federation.

Use this Forum and associated Ministerial meetings to consider true
'break through' solutions.

Reduce costs - delivery methods need to vary – especially in
flexible prescription. How will this work in Tennant Creek?

Potential risks identified by Working Group participants:

Can be mitigated – not removed.

Regulatory overlap.

Uncertainty in constant change.

Rigid regulatory system can prevent innovation.

Technology – regulation not keeping up.

4.3.2 Minimising regulatory
burden

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

Heavy Vehicle National Law has not addressed cross border /
regional and remote issues - Jurisdictional differences in requirements
for:

Exemptions

Axle weights/dimensions

Fatigue.

Long distances mean more mass, e.g. fuel.

Inconsistency with national regulations leads to approvals taking
too long because of multiple approvals from various jurisdictions.

Oversize permits cross jurisdictions take too long which has an
impact on business.

Local Government Association (LGA) issues with State and Federal
government delineation in regulation and legislation. In some placed LGA
under writing private / commercial enterprise with no wider community
benefit.

Review of regulatory impacts on National Heavy Vehicle Law from
other requirements:

Disability Discrimination Act.

Access to National Ports.

Utilisation of school bus fleet.

Competitive neutrality regulation between models.

Example of National Heavy Vehicle Regulator.

Metro vs Regional.

How to break through Local vs National Benefits.

User pays cannot work easily.

Taxi and other regulations that (arguably) works in city is too
onerous in remote / small towns.

Potential solutions as identified by Working Group participants (in
priority order):

Harmonise opportunities by zone rather
than jurisdiction.

Prove exemptions and regional concession
schemes.

Shift national priority from urban freeway building to regional
highway upgrade.

Subsidise Council for roads.

Move funding from freeway building to remote.

Move to mutual recognition:

5 year transition to 1 set of rules

Limited prescription.

Corporate focus.

Potential risks identified by Working Group participants:

Continued cost and frustration.

No reliability in supply chain.

Too many local and state government employees involved and cost.

Unsure of scale of the taxi problem.

4.3.3 Risk based approach

Key issues identified by Working Group participants:

Different levels of risk apply in different parts of Australia -
Nationally acceptable level of risk (especially to life) should drive
regulatory solutions.

Perceived differences in the level of risks to infrastructure and
safety - What is an acceptable level of risk (and rate of consumption of
assets)?

National acceptance of risk should drive regulatory solution (air
and road).